httpd-docs mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jacek Prucia <>
Subject Re: apache 2.0; error mess., polish translation
Date Mon, 28 Apr 2003 21:11:59 GMT
On Tue, 8 Apr 2003 15:54:40 +0200
Tomasz Babczyński (alter ego) <> wrote:

> I beleive, we'll come to consensus :)

same feelings here :)

> > s/bramka/brama/
> I think it's a matter of taste. In "E-P Computing Dictionary"
> both words are given. For me, it could be 'brama', why not.


> > ...and I get the feeling that 'Zła' is more related to person description,
> IMO rather colloquial, but you are right: 'nieprawidłowa' is better.
> And what about 'niewłaściwa'?

while i prefer 'nieprawidłowa' i have nothing aginst 'niewłaściwa' -- pick

> > I think that "Dostęp zabroniony" would be much better here...
> But 'wstęp wzbroniony' sounds better :) I'll insist on this.

Sure it sounds better, but seems to be incorrect. I just had a quick look at
my dictionary, and here's what I've found:

'wstęp' -- admission
'dostęp' -- access taking original message into consideration -- I'll insist on 'dostęp',
because it looks like it is correct translation.

> > How about: "Zasób nie jest już dostępny".
> Isn't it too long for a title on window's border?

It is long, but also correct. The problem with translation from english to
polish is that you'll get one of the following:

1. strict translation resulting in long sentences
2. a bit loose translation with short sentences, but twisted/unclear meaning

...since Apache is so respectful product I would prefer first option.

> > > +<!--#set var="TITLE" value="Nie ma!" -->
> > Ouch... "Zasób nie odnaleziony" looks lika a far better transaction for
> > "Object not found".
> And what answered the saleswoman in early 80'? :) I'm emotionally attached
> to those 'nie ma!' ;)

I remember that also :) However because of mentioned Apache respect, i prefer
strict translation. 

> > > Index: error/HTTP_NOT_IMPLEMENTED.html.var
> > > +<!--#set var="TITLE" value="Nie da się!"-->
> > Same here -- "Nie można przetworzyć zapytania"
> 'Funkcja niezaimplementowana',
> 'Obsługa niewykonalna',
> 'Usługa niezrealizowana'
> ... for further discussion.

My previous "Nie można przetworzyć zapytania" is an example of strict
translation. While your proposals are ok, they use different words to describe
the same situation. I don't know if this is good idea.

> > > +<!--#set var="TITLE" value="Wariant sam jest zmienny!"-->
> > I would remove "sam" in favour of "także", but this is not so important.
> And what about removing 'sam' completely?

Hmmm... I feel that we have to leave either 'sam' or 'także' -- so that we
have coresponding word for 'also'.

> > > +Jeśli może to być błąd po stronie serwera, proszę skontaktować się
> > > +href="mailto:<!--#echo encoding="url" var="SERVER_ADMIN" -->">
> > > +zarządcą WWW</a>.
> > s/może to być błąd/uważasz, że to błąd/
> > s/zarządcą WWW/administratorem serwera/
> It is exactly as in my first version. Now all messages (i hope) are in
> impersonal form. In Polish 'ty' is a bit different from 'you' in English.
> I don't like too much the 'może to być błąd' but I wouldn't like to
> change it to 'uważasz'. I remain open to next propositions.

So let's be strict -- how about 'myślisz, że to błąd'
...though it sounds strange.

> The second sentence. In the first version I had 'jego administratorem'
> and changed to 'zarządcą WWW' because I've found it to be more closed
> to original term 'webmaster'. The problem is to find who exactly is
> responsible for such errors: webmaster or server admin, and whos mailbox is
> the proper place for complaints. May be should it be 'administratorem
> serwera WWW'.

'administratorem serwera WWW' is just right. However looking at other
translations, looks like most of the people left 'webmaster' without
translation. Maybe we schould do the same?

Jacek Prucia

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message